[Footnote 495: _Per legem apparentem._ Alluding to the passage now before us, Sir Henry Spelman observes, “I do not think it should be understood of the Duel, but the Ordeal.” This conjecture is countenanced by the 87th Chapter of the Grand Norman Custumary, however true it may be, that the _lex apparens_ was, in the general sense of the expression, applied to the Duel. (Spelm. Gloss. ad voc. _lex_ and his Reliq. p. 80.)] [Footnote 496: _Ex regiæ dispensationis beneficio, tam vitæ, quam membrorum suorum ejus pendet judicium_ is the original passage. I have availed myself of the Translation of the Regiam Majestatem. “And, if any man is condemned of that crime, his judgment and punishment of his life and limbs depend only upon the king’s benefit and good will, as in all other pleas of felony and sedition against the realm.” (L. 4. c. 1.)] Should, however, a certain accuser appear in the first instance, he shall be attached by Pledges, if he can produce any such, to prosecute his Suit. But, if he is unable to adduce any Pledges, it is usual to trust to his solemn promise,[497] as in all Pleas concerning Felony. Yet is it customary in these cases to confide in a promise, least by exacting too hard a security, others might be deterred from making a similar accusation.[498] Security having been taken from the Accuser to prosecute his Plea, then, the party accused, is, as we have observed, usually attached by safe and secure Pledges; or, if he cannot produce any pledges, he shall be cast into Prison. But, in all Pleas of Felony, the Accused is generally dismissed on pledges,[499] except in a Plea of Homicide, where, for the sake of striking terror, it is otherwise enacted. The next step usually resorted to, is to appoint a day to the parties, pending which, the usual Essoins are allowed to be cast. [Footnote 497: _Fidei suæ religionis_—“his faithful promise is sufficient,” says the Regiam Majestatem. (L. 4. c. 1.) In the opinion of the canonists the _fidei interpositio_ was equally binding with an oath. (Lyndwood’s Provinc. 271.)] [Footnote 498: Bracton gives the same reason. (118. b.)] [Footnote 499: But this the Mirror terms an abuse. (c. 5.)] At length, the Accuser should propose his charge: that he had seen, or by some other proof in Court, that he perfectly well knew, that the Accused had conspired or done something against the King’s life; or to move a sedition in the Realm or Army; or to have consented, or given Counsel, or delegated an authority, towards effecting such object; and the Accuser should allege, that he was prepared to prove his charge, according to the direction of the Court.[500] [Footnote 500: See Bracton 119. a. Fleta L. 1. c. 21. s. 2.]